• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

The Dark Knight Pre-credits Prologue : The Joker's origin.

It sort of seems like we will get that... I mean no guarantee but there is the scene with the thugs arguing about his origin - and how some think he is a monster and stuff.
 
It sort of seems like we will get that... I mean no guarantee but there is the scene with the thugs arguing about his origin - and how some think he is a monster and stuff.
You just made my day, thank you.
 
I hope those thugs are well cast and we really feel their fear when they talk about the Midnight Clown. Nolan is a master when it comes to casting his movies so it should be just fine.
 
Nolan is the ninja of all casting.
 
That rumor from way back, about Joker being scarred by a zip-line, still holds water or debunked?
 
That rumor from way back, about Joker being scarred by a zip-line, still holds water or debunked?
To my knowledge, it's still a tie between zip-line, batarang or self-inflicted but some better informed people than me out there might give you a more precise answer.
 
To my knowledge, it's still a tie between zip-line, batarang or self-inflicted but some better informed people than me out there might give you a more precise answer.
Well, if the "smile" is NOT self-inflicted, then perhaps that might be his origin in this movie. The scarring is TDK version of falling into a vat of chemicals.
 
Well, if the "smile" is NOT self-inflicted, then perhaps that might be his origin in this movie. The scarring is TDK version of falling into a vat of chemicals.
That sounds like a good possibility, unless there is no origin at all as it's been reported and the character comes fully formed as in Batman # 1, often referenced by Nolan.
 
There should be different diverging accounts about the Joker from the people who crossed his path and survived.
No origin though, just snippets of info throughout the film.
Some could say he used to be a failed comedian (nice hommage to TKJ), others a low life gangster (B89), but nobody would know for sure where he came from. Just like the Bogeyman.
The more mystery surrounding him the better, just like in Batman #1, still to this day, IMO, one of the best Joker appearance ever, and also heavily referenced by Nolan.

yeah this is an idea that's been going around for a while. It's good, perfect Joker, but it still might be too much information to fit into the films purposes maybe.

I think even if we don't the get the specifics of his background (comedian, gangster) we will at least get a theory about his accident/presumed death that is eventually proved dubious.


TromaFreak has a good point on the goons discussing the nature of the Joker. This to me is where his 'origin' plays into the film. It CREATES mystery, it doesn't destroy it. Seriously, people who say he needs to be a 'total mystery' just aren't getting it. You don't create a workable mystery by simply skirting the subject entirely. Not in films, at least.


Also, to anyone who's reading I'd like to direct your attention to the Suspicious Side again. The one with the cop, the thug, the burial ground and the missing mob boss. Q: "where did you bury your boss" A: "Don,t worry he'll find you". "It's an INSIDE JOKE".
 
That sounds like a good possibility, unless there is no origin at all as it's been reported and the character comes fully formed as in Batman # 1, often referenced by Nolan.

Agreed... And obligatory origins are boring as fawk.

I think Nolan and Co. are more concerned with character development as opposed to "origins"-- and the character to have evolve from film to film is that of Bruce Wayne.

I mean, the premise to Batman Begins is sort of flimsy, no? (I'm not Nolan-bashing: hear me out for a second) I mean, Bruce Wayne's principal intentions are rather naive, reflecting that of a rich kid becoming barely politically aware (Katie Holmes takes him on a consciousness-elevating joyride through the ghetto, and Bruce concludes "I'm going to show the people of Gotham that they don't have to fear the corrupt." C'mon!). He wants to rid Gotham of the systemic, organized criminal element that (somehow) renders much of Gotham into a violent, impoverished Kowloon-esque ghetto. Violence is a tool for the mob, not an end. So, if Batman can bring down the mob and scare civic officials straight, then law and order will be restored. Violence goes bye-bye. Mom and apple pie ensue.

The Joker, on the other hand, does not share the mob's motivations. The Joker's violence is wholly irrational -- representing something much darker, and more difficult to deconstruct. I think it's clear that Nolan is pretty interested in going in this direction, given the teaser trailer ("Some people just want to watch the world burn") -- and I hope that Nolan's Bruce Wayne will mature a bit in the process. I mean, think of Harvey Dent/Two-Face: he is just as violent as the Joker, and just as irrational. The Joker represents the taboo, violent impulses of the unconscious; Two-Face represents the arbitrary, unjust working of a godless universe (i.e. a coin-toss).

I just don't think it'll service Nolan's Batman if he understands that the Joker was thrown into a vat of acid, beaten as a child, grew up in too close of a proximity to power-lines, etc. After all, we don't know the "origins" of our own dark, libidinal impulses...
 
Well that is all fine and dandy, but if Nolan shows Joker wearing make-up, he is flat out saying "LOOK, it`s just a guy with pancake on, there really is no magic behind it, just a psycho guy with a clown fetish". I am all for no origin story for The Joker, but showing make-up is an absolute statement, and if Nolan REALLY based his Joker off his first stories, then he should know Joker has been PERMANENTLY white in those. I am holding out for a Joker twist, but the pics so far bum me out.
 
To my knowledge, it's still a tie between zip-line, batarang or self-inflicted but some better informed people than me out there might give you a more precise answer.

Are we allowed post the pics yet? This is ANNYONG!

Well as I've said before, if you look at the pic of Joker and Rachel which was officially released, you'll notice that it isn't really a cut per se, it's more like a welt, or some sort of burn, which looks like something which could have been caused by something like a zipline.

That's on his left hand side as we look at him.

On on the right hand side of his face, however, as is evident in the leaked pic, of the joker in close up when batman is handing him his ass on a plate, with the make up running down, that in no way resembles the other side of his face.

The injuries on each side of his face are asymmetrical.

The injury on the right hand side is much "cleaner", and is more obviously a cut.

It wouldn not surprise me if one side of the injury... the "welt" is caused by an accident or something, and that the other side, the cut, is self inflicted.
 
yeah this is an idea that's been going around for a while. It's good, perfect Joker, but it still might be too much information to fit into the films purposes maybe.

I think even if we don't the get the specifics of his background (comedian, gangster) we will at least get a theory about his accident/presumed death that is eventually proved dubious.


TromaFreak has a good point on the goons discussing the nature of the Joker. This to me is where his 'origin' plays into the film. It CREATES mystery, it doesn't destroy it. Seriously, people who say he needs to be a 'total mystery' just aren't getting it. You don't create a workable mystery by simply skirting the subject entirely. Not in films, at least.


Also, to anyone who's reading I'd like to direct your attention to the Suspicious Side again. The one with the cop, the thug, the burial ground and the missing mob boss. Q: "where did you bury your boss" A: "Don,t worry he'll find you". "It's an INSIDE JOKE".
Great post. I really hope that scene with the thugs discussing the Joker is in there, almost like kids talking about the Bogeyman. I love the fact that like Troma, said they didn't think he was human. The Joker as urban legend, the perfect flip side to the Bat.

Agreed... And obligatory origins are boring as fawk.

I think Nolan and Co. are more concerned with character development as opposed to "origins"-- and the character to have evolve from film to film is that of Bruce Wayne.

I mean, the premise to Batman Begins is sort of flimsy, no? (I'm not Nolan-bashing: hear me out for a second) I mean, Bruce Wayne's principal intentions are rather naive, reflecting that of a rich kid becoming barely politically aware (Katie Holmes takes him on a consciousness-elevating joyride through the ghetto, and Bruce concludes "I'm going to show the people of Gotham that they don't have to fear the corrupt." C'mon!). He wants to rid Gotham of the systemic, organized criminal element that (somehow) renders much of Gotham into a violent, impoverished Kowloon-esque ghetto. Violence is a tool for the mob, not an end. So, if Batman can bring down the mob and scare civic officials straight, then law and order will be restored. Violence goes bye-bye. Mom and apple pie ensue.

The Joker, on the other hand, does not share the mob's motivations. The Joker's violence is wholly irrational -- representing something much darker, and more difficult to deconstruct. I think it's clear that Nolan is pretty interested in going in this direction, given the teaser trailer ("Some people just want to watch the world burn") -- and I hope that Nolan's Bruce Wayne will mature a bit in the process. I mean, think of Harvey Dent/Two-Face: he is just as violent as the Joker, and just as irrational. The Joker represents the taboo, violent impulses of the unconscious; Two-Face represents the arbitrary, unjust working of a godless universe (i.e. a coin-toss).

I just don't think it'll service Nolan's Batman if he understands that the Joker was thrown into a vat of acid, beaten as a child, grew up in too close of a proximity to power-lines, etc. After all, we don't know the "origins" of our own dark, libidinal impulses...
Also very interesting, the Joker as a dark manifestation of our id. The Jungian shadow.
The joker is a man without a past, he prefers it multiple choice. He is the "Midnight Clown" coming straight out of our nightmares. Man, this film is gonna be great.
 
Are we allowed post the pics yet? This is ANNYONG!

Well as I've said before, if you look at the pic of Joker and Rachel which was officially released, you'll notice that it isn't really a cut per se, it's more like a welt, or some sort of burn, which looks like something which could have been caused by something like a zipline.

That's on his left hand side as we look at him.

On on the right hand side of his face, however, as is evident in the leaked pic, of the joker in close up when batman is handing him his ass on a plate, with the make up running down, that in no way resembles the other side of his face.

The injuries on each side of his face are asymmetrical.

The injury on the right hand side is much "cleaner", and is more obviously a cut.

It wouldn not surprise me if one side of the injury... the "welt" is caused by an accident or something, and that the other side, the cut, is self inflicted.
Yeah that'd make sense, losing his mind and giving himself half a Chelsea grin to complete the clown motif he's obsessed with..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"